"No, the point is that junk-DNA is vestigial sequences from polyploidy"
This is an assertion, and your main point was that this so called junk DNA is mostly functionless and you said that even creationist admitted that pseudogenes served no function therefore this is an example of bad design. Lets be honest and not change the goal post.
The point is pseudogenes have been found to have function, so your video is false. You continue to persist that if something has not been figured out yet, then therefore it has no function, even though we're constantly discovering more function everyday.
Pseudogenes have been defined as nonfunctional sequences of genomic DNA originally derived from functional genes, but we now know they have important function. So of course their definition has to reformulated. Thats just circular thinking.
Are you saying that this so called junk DNA including pseudogenes which are in fact known to perform these important regulatory functions is irrelevant? Or that it does not contradict your video when it clearly does? Why have you ignored the literature?
Some pseudogenes have been found to have function, and there is a discussion about whether or not these should then be called pseudogenes. The question is: are there gene sequences with no known function? The answer is yes. Though, as I explained last year, the point isn't that these sequences are completely non-functional, but that they are clear evidence of polyploidy. You can compare junk-DNA with vestigial organs. Non-functionality isn't the point.
The reasoning of some of these die hards who still ignore all the current empirical evidence is that if we dont understand what its used for, then it must be non functional junk. This thinking has risen up and bit people in the ass. E.g Pseudogenes have been found to exhibit functional roles, such as gene expression, gene regulation, generation of genetic antibody, antigenic, and other functions.
C Value enigma states that genome size does not correlate with organismal complexity. Many single celled protists have genomes much larger than that of humans & by orders of magnitude..
This was another failed prediction that surprised a lot of evo biologist. J DNA was once the poster child for evolution. K. Miller just a few short years ago described it as mindless scribble hence bad design, but modern science has proved him and this J DNA paradigm to be false.
ISN'T EVOLUTION YOUR SUPPOSED TO EVOLVE SO HOW IS IT WE EVOLVE AND YET WE HAVE ALL THIS JUNK DNA. NO.. THEY JUST STRIPPED AWAY OUR KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITIES OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. WE ARE AN AWESOME CREATION AND WE DESERVE THE TRUTH AT THE LEAST
We don't know the function to all the DNA yet, but most of it isn't actually junk. Redundancy in the genome makes it possible for populations to evolve without losing important protein functions in the process, for example. But, there are some sequences that appear to have no function at all. They are mutated remnants of past evolution.
@smaakjeks the problem is we are not supposed to know the function are are just supposed to be and exist with it, we have strayed from our spiritual selves and became a product of this mindless system with no conscience. a robot following its daily routines.
@smaakjeks Oh i see your one of them that has to be right all the time huh. first i never said knowledge is evil. and i do not consider myself ignorant. i say spiritual in the way as in loving one another and trusting your intuition and not create useless wars for greed. again i said nothing about knowledge and science, i believe this system not right what i work like a programmed robot for 60-70 years then i can retire come on. and understand this is just me dont judge me for what i believe
@smaakjeks alright just making sure cause i left a comment and you felt you had to "correct me" when i say we are not supposed to know i mean it as look at how far we are from ending world hunger, we can build billion dollar aircrafts and bombs ect....i truly feel knowing DNA abilities it will be used for evil an greed, and i agree with your last statement but knowledge of this DNA will be used for self greed.
But, knowledge can also be used for good. By using our knowledge of DNA, we have been able to cross-breed plants in order to grow them in areas they couldn't grow before. Literally, a billion people have been saved from starvation because of this. Look up Norman Borlaug and the work he has done.
Yes, and it was interesting to hear your viewpoint. So many people use the word "spirituality" without explaining what they mean. You explained what you meant right away and that was very helpful. Might I just recommend that you don't use all caps next time? Because, even if you make a cogent argument, using caps lock makes it seem like you're only there to shout at people. You know what I mean?
isnt junk DNA only considered "junk" until we discover its purpose? b/c everyday scientists are finding new gene sequences here and there for all kinds of features and functions, its only a matter of time(well a long time) until we can learn everything there is about what each sequence does.
Didn't watch this whole video just yet, as it seemed like it was going down the road of symbols and Biology talk, but I want to point out that one named Kryon, you can find his site, has stated that junk DNA is actually the 95% of our DNA that is Multi-dimensional, is our actual connection to the divine, God and that is contains all info that ever existed, our past lives, everything. If we can activate it, communicate with it, incredible transformation will ensue.
@smaakjeks Kryon in ten years or so, has called for things with a high probabliity of taking place, to happen, and he has been right every time. Every thing he shares feels like absolute truth to me without a shread of doubt. His info about DNA is the only info I care to read and I know it is Truth
"Kryon in ten years or so, has called for things with a high probabliity of taking place, to happen, and he has been right every time."
That's what they all say. Do you have a record of all his predictions, before the events took place, or are you relying on what he tells you he predicted? Go to any psychic's website and they will claim exactly the same level of accuracy. When people actually take note of what they predict on beforehand, the predictions become very unconvincing.
@smaakjeks Yes there are records and you can see them at the Kryon site. Also Kryon is not a psychic, way above and beyond that sort of thing! You are the type of person who will believe the bible is a holy book because your Daddy told you so, and you will defend that crazy bullshit for life!
"Yes there are records and you can see them at the Kryon site."
Yeah, that's what I thought.
"Also Kryon is not a psychic, way above and beyond that sort of thing!"
Are you saying Kryon is making predictions using testable, scientific method?
"You are the type of person who will believe the bible is a holy book because your Daddy told you so, and you will defend that crazy bullshit for life!"
I suppose it's comfortable to vilify me. That way you don't have to listen to my points.
@smaakjeks As far as I'm concerned, if you don't accept that science is slowly but surely uncovering things never known before about who and what we really are, then there is no need having any sort of discussion with you. And I am sorry for villifying you. Beliefs are the number one problem in the world, not politics and not economics!
You don't concern yourself much with answering my questions, so I think we are done. For the record, I'm pretty sure I know more about science and its philosophy than you, based on the posts you've written here.
@smaakjeks I don't answer your questions because you are a full blown skeptic and until you SEE something in a journal full of experimental documentation and so forth, then it does not exist and cannot be, so you will be stuck in your beliefs, stuck in the mud for life
@smaakjeks Ha, I hear you brother and I do have a combative attitude with this, because you know sometimes you just have to go with your gut, the God given guidance that flows inside, with what feels good and right, not always only with statistics, tests and things Proven
"sometimes you just have to go with your gut, the God given guidance that flows inside, with what feels good and right, not always only with statistics, tests and things Proven"
How does one determine when one should leave aside the statistics, tests and previous knowledge?
@smaakjeks Can you admit that millions have died defending their beliefs, even though their beliefs were handed to them by another human being? I cannot tell YOU when to leave aside the protocol you use in order to Believe a thing, on you YOU can know that. I believe that Jesus did in fact exist, but have not seen anything to date, that would Prove it.
@smaakjeks I wonder, if you will actually go and look for everything about DNA at the Kryon site? You just don't know, what you might find there and how it makes you feel or think about things afterwards, but you have to leave all your pre-programmed beliefs at the Door please
@smaakjeks Here is what Kryon has to say about some scientific "assuptions" -What scientists call the "big bang residue" is an energy left over from a dimensional shift, not an explosion. It creates a reality where you can only see part of it in 4D, and where the energy doesn’t "add up" to the whole you know is there. This will lead you into interdimensional math and eventually to also discover the vents we’ve spoken about
@smaakjeks Kryon -All dimensions are in your lap for you to work with. There’s nothing hiding, or against some spiritual law. Magnetics is only the first area of interdimensional physics, but it’s the most obvious, since it exists in 4D in a way that can be seen and manipulated. Be careful not to have too many presuppositions about what might or might not be the results of experiments. Remember one of the most basic quantum rules: When you get into interdimensionality, distance isn’t a factor.
@smaakjeks If you want me to concern myself with the SCIENCE, then I will send you on to a very science based, factual, truthful book called The Field by Lynn McTaggart, just might want to check it out, since it is full of scientific facts taht cannot be denied
Books are not necessarily peer reviewed. Anyone can get a book published. You seem to think psychics are nonsense. Yet, plenty of psychics have published books on their "accomplishments". You see the problem? A book does not constitute absolute or irrefutable evidence.
@smaakjeks In other words you must have IRREFUTABLE evidence correct? What if the author of a book could sit down and tell you everything that happened on any given day of your life, after you give them a date? Where would that info be coming from? After experiencing something like that, let me tell you, you don't need irrefutable evidence
@smaakjeks Do you have any reason to believe Kryon is wrong about DNA? He says the multi dimensional portion of us, is in fact the 95% of DNA science calls Junk DNA, prove him wrong please!
"Do you have any reason to believe Kryon is wrong about DNA? He says the multi dimensional portion of us, is in fact the 95% of DNA science calls Junk DNA, prove him wrong please!"
How is it my burden of proof? He's the one making the claim. He needs to show evidence for it. If I say that gravity is caused by angels, it's not your job to prove me wrong, right? My claim about angels is not held as reasonable UNTIL someone proves it wrong. I must provide the evidence first.
@smaakjeks This is where you lose the argument every time. I guarantee there are lots of your beliefs based on nonsense or what somebody told you and you cannot prove them to be Truth. My beliefs are based on the fact that channelers and channeled messages have been around for centuries and before. They can tell you all about yourself even though the channel does not know you at all and lives thousands of miles away from you, they can tell you about your family, your thoughts right then and ther
"I guarantee there are lots of your beliefs based on nonsense"
Maybe. I try to avoid it as best I can by being open to new evidence. Even if the evidence does not agree with my previously held beliefs. If someone corrects a wrong belief of mine, I thank them in all sincerity.
"My beliefs are based on the fact that channelers and channeled messages have been around for centuries and before."
And no one has ever demonstrated such powers in controlled tests, ever.
@smaakjeks Yes I do know what it is composed of. Do you? If someone claims Jesus still speaks to us always, you will want them to show him to you for proof, funny stuff for sure!
@smaakjeks You put this video up here and so you need to know, that the latest messages from the higher dimensions states that both are right. How's that for solving the dilemma? It was and is both, creation and evolution you see. LOL We were created as expressions of God force energy and we are evolving and expanding with each choice we make in every Holy Moment
@smaakjeks would you feel the higher dimension messages were scrambled if the personality coming through could tell you all about yourself and your life, every minute detail? Hmmmm
@smaakjeks Why not do a little research that is based on fact and experiment? Check out the work of Dr. Todd Ovokaitys and also the work of Dr. Vladamir Poponin, recognized around the world as a leading expert in Quantum Biology. Also, Scott Stratken, a physicist and co-inventor of the Sonogram. Then get back to me!
"Check out the work of Dr. Todd Ovokaitys and also the work of Dr. Vladamir Poponin, recognized around the world as a leading expert in Quantum Biology."
Um, quantum biology? Alright, sure. What papers have they written and in which scientific journals were they published?
@smaakjeks sure hope you check this Doctor out and see for yourself what kind of things are taking place these days! Time to throw open the doors and windows and let some FRESH air in me thinks
@smaakjeks Dr. Ovokaitys has found or uncovered Interdimensionality within our own cellular structure! He is leading the way in eliminating Aids from Africa, how bout that?
@smaakjeks One of the Core statements of Superstring Theory is that the Center of the Atom contains at least 11 dimensions! All this time and money in Geneva Switzerland will prove over time what many already know or suspect, that we are only aware of four dimensions in an 11 dimensional soup!
"One of the Core statements of Superstring Theory is that the Center of the Atom contains at least 11 dimensions!"
So? That doesn't mean there are people living there, telling us what our DNA is all about. Just like the fact that New York exists doesn't prove that Spider-Man exists.
@smaakjeks Dr. Stratken has created a Device that somehow excites multidimensional parts of our cellular structure with information. The results of lab tests showed that the human body was reacting to things that had never been seen before. "Invisible Biology" was being stimulated to create self diagnostics and attack virulent, marauding diseases to the point of extinction of them
you say that creationist never have any prophecies that come true. Well We got World Wars right. Bigger earthquakes, mass murders, the rebuilding of Babel and so many more right. what have evolutionist gotten right ye?t
I never talked about prophecies. Prophecy is always bullshit, because 1) they can be self-fulfilling, and B) they are always....ALWAYS... interpreted after the fact.
How come no creationists warned us about Hitler in the 1930's, for example? Or warned archduke Ferdinand to stay at home before that? Natural disasters/genocides are not increasing in severity, sorry.
I'm talking about scientific (falsifiable) predictions. Evolution has several. Creationism has zero.
@smaakjeks actually you did talk about prophecies."Creationists can't make ANY predictions because their model is utterly unfalsifiable, and thus unscientific". In Revelations the words War worlds is mentioned. This was translated 400 years ago, and was written 1980 years ago. It all was, it's up to us how deep we go to find out what is really in there. However scientist can't even predict the weather.
No. A prophecy does not equal a prediction in the scientific sense. I explained why prophecies are unconvincing already. Your comments has nothing to do with creationism, evolution or falsifiability. I'm not interested in debunking Bible codes or prophecies here. There are plenty of videos that deal with that nonsense.
"However scientist can't even predict the weather."
Don't even go there. Science demonstrably proves its worth.
@smaakjeks oh really. Pick a city. Pick a station. Listen to the weather person and dress accordingly. after you get soaked or burnt then tell me that scientist can tell the weather. Predictions are prophecies. Just as bad is evil.
If you think science is worthless then get off your computer. Also stop using modern medicine. And modern transportation. Because all of it is a product of scientific knowledge.
@smaakjeks many different forms of science is very much worthless. Medical science can't seem to cure anything only patch it up yet eastern medicine seems to cure almost everything, just by using basic herbs. Computer science isn't the same as conventional science. Oh and I don't use Modern Medicine. I don't get sic, I've never had any serious problems and like millions of Americans I get along just fine without it. Modern Transportation. So how many die cause of transportation problems each day
"many different forms of science is very much worthless."
That depends on what your idea of science is, and what you mean by worthless.
"Medical science can't seem to cure anything"
You don't think modern medical science is worth much? Have you checked the life expectancy before and after modern medicine kicked in? Go back a few hundred years and you would be dead before 50. Remember that day you had polio? Or small pox? No? That's because you never had it.
"yet eastern medicine seems to cure almost everything, just by using basic herbs."
Herbs are not magical. Modern medicine exploits the active ingredients in herbs by extracting them or replicating them, and dosing them properly. Using just the herb is not safe medical practice, because
1) there are usually many active ingredients in a plant and the mix might be detrimental to you (i.e. organ damage or other side effects)
Yes you do. Do you drink from the tap? You're welcome for the fluoridation that strengthens your teeth. Do you live near people? You're welcome for the herd immunity that vaccinations bring. Do you buy food? You're welcome for the preservatives and sanitation with which those products are possible. Most of the invasive help, like surgery or long-term treatments, will happen late in your life. Also, haven't you been to the dentist?
"I've never had any serious problems and like millions of Americans I get along just fine without it."
Until they have to give birth or they get cancer, heart failure etc etc.
"Modern Transportation. So how many die cause of transportation problems each day"
You're blaming science for that? You would rather we hadn't discovered the internal combustion engine or its physical principles because less people would die? You're welcome to be Amish, but that would mean no youtube.
I just love how evolutionist say that they can prove evolution through the fact that our DNA has mostly Junk DNA in it. When truthfully speaking it's not junk, Atheist always call something useless if they don't understand it. Evolutionist always call something a lie if they can't use it towards their advantage. Truth of th fact is God has a purpose for everything, and nothing is here just to do nothing. Even the smallest pebble has a meaning and importance. You just have to find it.
@smaakjeks You know what i Did. I went to Evolutionist websites dealing with new found uses of MDNA for cancer and how they on their website said that it's apparently not all "Junk" as they've said many times before.
@smaakjeks Not at first. but I still disagree. Here's why. Until we know for a fact what all the DNA does then the 2% that we do know about is all the scientific world can actually talk about. To know now that it's not really "Junk" anymore is a good start however Creationist had been saying this since the beginning. to be honest you can't say that J-DNA has no Protein values in it what so ever cause we don't know how to look for the information we would need.
You evidently don't understand the subject at all, nor what scientists think of the matter of J-DNA. Until you do, educate yourself. I don't have time.
Creationists can't make ANY predictions because their model is utterly unfalsifiable, and thus unscientific. View my video called "creationism and falsifiability" (part 1) if you disagree.
@smaakjeks Well I actually do understand it. I don't have to have a in depth understanding to gasp the full picture. I've read a few different papers on what scientist think of j-DNA and what they think it does. the problem is once again they think that it does one thing when they don't know what it's function is yet. BTW if I make any mistakes, please excuse me, I've been up for 40 hours.
"I've read a few different papers on what scientist think of j-DNA and what they think it does."
Such as?
"the problem is once again they think that it does one thing when they don't know what it's function is yet."
But for the vast majority of the different categories of non-coding sequences, they do know. But this is not the point of my video. My video (in the context of the video series) shows how new genes can arise and that j-DNA is evidence of such mechanisms.
One man's "junk" is another person's "treasure"--it all depends on whether you base your assumption on "it will have lots of leftover junk because it wasn't designed, but came about totally by copy erros" or "it is well designed but has undergone degradation."
Now the evolutionists are being forced to redefine what "junk" is because the sequences have been shown to be quite useful--which is what ID predicted.
It's been a long time since scientists though most "junk-DNA" had no function. And it was not creationists who corrected that. It was scientists. There are actually no predictions of ID (check out my video "creationism and falsifiability" if you think there are). If there were, you would be able to tell me what the difference between a designed and a non-designed life form would be and why.
@smaakjeks "diff. betw. a designed and a non-designed life form would be and why" I wouldn't postulate that there are ANY non-designed life forms. Life requires the ability to metabolize and reproduce--two very complex functions that require fully working systems or they die.
If you want to use an altered life form taking a living organism and replacing all or a portion of its DNA, we would have to classify this as a designed life forum--as prone to disease and death as this life form might be.
@smaakjeks "the topic" Please, no false dichotomies. To talk about a LIFE form requires reference to that which could give it life, i.e. -biogenesis. A non-designed life form might look something like a momentary stringing together of a mix of right and left-handed amino acids. It couldn't get any further than that and would either be destroyed by UV light or would quickly disassociate.
The only other one I can think of would be the aberrant cell growth of cancer in a designed life form.
Um, what? I never said abiogenesis and evolution are dichotomous. But they are different subjects.
"To talk about a LIFE form requires reference to that which could give it life, i.e. -biogenesis."
You're the one claiming that ID has made accurate predictions about genomes as they exist today. Thus you are yourself talking about life today, and not how it arose.
@smaakjeks You separated the topics when discussion of how one could have a LIFE form is the essence of the question of what non-designed LIFE forms would look like. OK, let's assume we already have LIFE. How would we, from this point on get non-designed life? I gave you the only scenario I could think of--that which is caused by a virus or radiation--cancer.
Cancer has order, but it eventually takes over and kills the "host." Non-designed life = death.
You're not getting my point. You said ID has made accurate predictions about life as it exists today. In order for a prediction to be scientifically valid, it must be potentially falsifiable. Thus, in order for you to recognize life as designed you must be able to tell me how a non-designed life form WOULD be like if one could exist. And you have to tell me WHY it would be like that.
For ex. I can tell you potentially falsifiable predictions that evolution gives about life.
@smaakjeks I did tell you. I have no evidence that non-designed life--other than that aberrated by cancer or irradiation or some other destroyer of order--could survive. Run with the implications of irradiated embryos because that would be one of the only examples of non-designed life that we have. Even still, that non-designed life exists within a designed host. Will the cancer cells pass on their DNA to the next generation? I haven't studied enough about this to know. Likely it will die.
Read carefully. I am not asking for actual evidence. First you must be able to RECOGNIZE what non-designed life WOULD look like IF it existed, as opposed to designed life.
Let's say I claim that all boats float. How can I know if my claim is right? I must have a way of RECOGNIZING whether or not my claim is true. Well, I would know what a sunken boat looks like as opposed to a floating boat, even if no boats ever actually sink. See?
@smaakjeks You get it! I can't postulate that there is anything but designed life because non-design doesn't work. It's just junk. I have no evidence to conclude that undirected forces ever create information. That is why evolutionary theory is preposterous to me. Now you may have evidence to conclude that undirected forces actually create information. Appealing to the adaptation of DNA is excluded or you are begging the question. It adapts because that is how it was designed to work. What else?
@smaakjeks Here's why I expect that you should get it:
"Let's say I claim that all boats float. How can I know if my claim is right? I must have a way of *RECOGNIZING* whether or not my claim is true. Well, I would *know * what a sunken boat looks like as opposed to a floating boat, even if no boats ever actually sink. See?"
This is based on something you actually KNOW. Why postulate on something I do not know to be true? Nothing in life tells me organized information comes from non-design.
"A non-designed life form might look something like a momentary stringing together of a mix of right and left-handed amino acids."
Why would that be? Remember I asked that you explain your reasoning. Natural selection accounts for the existence of only one type of life. Specifically, equations concerning populations and competition dynamics: the competitive Lotka-Volterra equations.
@smaakjeks Natural selection is not a force. Natural selection is not one thing. Natural selection does not award a prize to the absolute best or the actual "fittest." Natural selection actually means "whatever didn't die." A plane goes down, all but a single individual dies. This is "Natural Selection." That person's surviving the accident insures that only her DNA can be passed on--though it may not be.
I cannot speculate beyond that which is constrained by actual evidence.
@smaakjeks Is a plane supernatural? Of course not. It uses natural principles to fly. The death of species can be just as "stochastic." A catastrophic event wipes out all but certain life forms. This is Natural Selection. Survival of whatever didn't die.
Sometimes whatever didn't die is the result of greater will to live; sometimes of happening to be near water; being in the right place at the right time--pure chance.
Natural selection is NOT a force. It's a summary statement.
Um, I never said it was. I'm just saying that there's a difference between natural selection and stochasticity.
"The death of species can be just as "stochastic.""
Yep.
"This is Natural Selection. Survival of whatever didn't die."
Fallacy by equivocation. Natural selection is used to describe survivability in an environment. Catastrophic events can change the environment. Natural selection is not stochastic.
@smaakjeks Who's equivocating here? Events in the environment are frequently catastrophic. How few things are you going to allow in the natural world to qualify as "natural selection"? List them!
"How few things are you going to allow in the natural world to qualify as "natural selection"? List them!"
Any lasting restrictions on survivability and reproductive success causes natural selection. Sure, organisms die from stochastic events, too. But the resulting evolution is not the same. Random events like earthquakes usually don't amount to any measurable selective pressure. That is, there is no strong selection for earthquake avoidance. Because they occur "randomly".
@smaakjeks "Why would that be?" The only actual evidence we have of non-directed formation of a life form comes from the laboratory. Though highly contrived, as any lab experiment must be, it showed that non-directed design is a fleeting thing--momentary linking of amino acids, lining up in a mix of right and left-handed patterns and then rapid disassociation unless retrieved from the environment by the intervening scientist. That's it.
"The only actual evidence we have of non-directed formation of a life form comes from the laboratory."
Jesus wept.... It appears as though you don't know what the following words mean:
-potential
-falsifiable
-prediction
Do that. Then get back to me. If any and all potential evidence that could ever exist is predicted by ID, then nothing is predicted by ID. Don't you get that??
@smaakjeks You're really getting on my nerves. I answered your question. You can't get to "potential," "falsifiable," or "prediction" when you predicate your hypothetical on something that is impossible.
"Let's say I decided to physically enter the Internet this morning, and I met you ..."
That would be stupid. Here's the real question:
Do you believe that life periodically generates spontaneously from non-life?
Then, give one undisputed example of an unguided process creating code.
"You can't get to "potential," "falsifiable," or "prediction" when you predicate your hypothetical on something that is impossible."
What part of falsifiability don't you understand? Do I have to frikkin sing it to you? Methinks I have to make another video about creationism and falsifiability. This is obviously too difficult to grasp for the average creationist...
@smaakjeks I get that you want to talk about falsifiability. Don't be insulting. You can't talk about falsifiability of something that is imaginary. Unless we establish what is realistic and what is imaginary, we can't determine what is a fact and what can be falsified or not.
You set the table to ask about design. I answered your question, giving the only examples of non-designed life I could think of. I have called for evidence from the observable world to validate your imaginary scenario.
Though my future video deals with most of your stuff (in general at least), I can answer this question that you pose, as I do not address it in the video:
"Do you believe that life periodically generates spontaneously from non-life?"
No. In the environments that would be potentially hospitable to life forming eventually, there will be life already stealing the resources (organic compounds, energy, water, etc).
@smaakjeks OK. We are in agreement on this. To postulate that it can't happen now, but it HAD to happen back then is a "dog ate my homework" excuse. Why? There is no evidence that the environment was hospitable to formation of amino acids in the past.
1. As far as I know, oxidation is part of the geological record since the beginning.
2. Millers aminos had to be rescued from the "soup" or they'd disassociate.
Fundamentally, life doesn't come from non-life. Consciousness is not merely chemical.
@smaakjeks "Under sterile conditions it could." It hasn't ... under sterile conditions. Your FAITH is amazing.
"BULLSHIT." No cows at that time either to help the process. The evidence shows it was not a reducing environment. Plenty of oxidation at that point in the geological column says Miller's experiment set the wrong conditions.
"a smidgen farther since then" Created life in a sterile environment, have we? Didn't then, haven't now, will do it ... never. But your FAITH is commendable.
@smaakjeks "It's not a matter of faith." Hoping against hope that life can be produced in a laboratory when time and again it has not is most definitely faith. Neodarwinian evolution is built on Christian values, has the optimism of Christianity, and requires more FAITH in naturalistic means and human imagination than Christianity ever could.
"We're making progress." If you think jumping five feet in the air over four feet is making progress toward jumping to the moon, I admire your faith.
All the evidence we have suggests that life arose naturally. And even if we never know how it arose, that does not lend legitimacy to your notion of a supernatural creator (which is unfalsifiable). Your idea is not the default position.
"If you think jumping five feet in the air over four feet is making progress toward jumping to the moon, I admire your faith."
It's better than digging a hole and plugging your ears.
@smaakjeks Evolution is unfalsifiable. I've been reading and asking and no real test to the theory has been posited. The test you posited verifies ID as well. When anything that was predicted by evolutionary theory doesn't hold up (like junk DNA), evolutionists just change their definition, making the predictions unfalsiable. (Now junk doesn't really mean junk or even what was meant by the term when coined.)
I'll say! "Plugging [my] ears" I'll NEVER jump to the moon. Keep jumping! One day ...
All the evidence we have suggests that life arose naturally. And even if we never know how it arose, that does not lend legitimacy to your notion of a supernatural creator, which is unfalsifiable. Your idea is not the default position.
"If you think jumping five feet in the air over four feet is making progress toward jumping to the moon, I admire your faith."
It's better than digging a hole and plugging your ears.
"You can't use DNA. That would be begging the question since it is the very thing in dispute."
You said "code". I'm assuming you mean to say that DNA is a code, do you not? Otherwise why bring it up? So. In what way is DNA a code. That's what I asked. Stop beating around the bush and define it.
""My example of an unguided process creating code like I claim DNA does is DNA writing code without any guidance.""
@smaakjeks Get real. If any and all potential evidence that could ever exist is predicted by evolutionary theory, then nothing is predicted by evolutionary theory. Don't you get that??
You're describing evolutionary theory, not ID. ID doesn't predict everything. All it does is draw a correlation between design and, specifically, digital code and what we know about the mechanisms that create design.
It predicts useful information in the genome, not JUNK, and that is what we find.
"If any and all potential evidence that could ever exist is predicted by evolutionary theory, then nothing is predicted by evolutionary theory. Don't you get that??"
Except that evolution has specific predictions that ARE potentially falsifiable.
"ID doesn't predict everything"
Correction: doesn't predict anything.
"It predicts useful information in the genome"
Why would ID predict that? A supernatural creating being isn't restricted by natural genetics.
@smaakjeks Your skipping the implications that your statement indicted Evolutionary theory is noted.
The supernatural being established the laws of the universe. It is because of that worldview that scientists began looking for laws--and they found them. Other worldviews didn't and don't look for life to be amenable to law. (Islam, magic, etc.) His law is what guides the universe. Perhaps you didn't know this.
"The supernatural being established the laws of the universe. It is because of that worldview that scientists began looking for laws--and they found them. Other worldviews didn't and don't look for life to be amenable to law. (Islam, magic, etc.)"
Is that a joke? Muslims practically invented science. The Greeks invented logic. Christians spent most of the early days taking control and killing/burning knowledge. Now you want Christianity to take credit for scientific knowledge?
@smaakjeks ID doesn't predict everything. It predicts useful information in the genome--not junk. Yet it also recognizes that this information can be degraded by copying errors, though there was foresight in including mechanisms that usually catch such errors. Intelligent Design, as opposed to the "blind" (Dawkins) "stupid design" (Tyson) of evolution, also presupposes that the Intelligent Designer had forethought, which programmed in the ability to adapt to new situations.
Perhaps I should have used "falsifying" rather than "falsifiable". I respond to this in my future video. I'll PM you when it's up. I hope it clarifies my points.
I have can't have a closed my mind. As a rational person u always have to consider what future science may discover but as I said before as of now the Cvalue enigma or paradox or what ever name u prefer has not yet been resolved. I forgot to send Ryan Gregory's Birds Eye View, but in it he admits that the answers are probably not one dimensional and could be much more complex than we think. Keep in mind he didn't have the same data concerning Junk DNA as we have today, even if a short time ago.
Good. I'm glad you haven't closed your mind. You are obviously a mild case of creationist or whatever it is you prefer to be called. And indeed the field of molecular biology is progressing fast! That's why it's awesome when people take the time to point out mistakes in videos, such as you just did. I also go where the evidence points. I have never understood people who hold on to preferred beliefs, as if believing them in and of itself made them less false.
My words were that Cvalue enigma has never been resolved. I never said correlations could not be drawn. Are you reading a Birds Eye View T Ryan? Wikipedia also has article that is current. By the way, no offense. Don't mistake passion for hatred.
Well, the correlations could handily explain the varying c-values. It's not like it's an utter mystery that cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. Several known mechanisms increase and decrease genome size. This video does not illustrate a critical test of evolution. It's meant to demonstrate polyploidy in our evolutionary past. "Junk-DNA" (i.e. 97% of our genome) exist because of mechanisms such as that. That's the take-home message.
An lowly amoeba can have more genetic information than humans by orders of magnitude. We can draw correlations and make hypothesis based on observable evidence & based on the failed Junk DNA paradigm hypothesis, but the complexity of organisms and animals can not be determined on the genetic level with out priori assumptions and conjecture. Twenty years ago, we couldn't figure out what these segments did.....therefore evolution must have done it. Sound familiar?
I have responded to and refuted you assertion that the c-value enigma still exists. You're right about complexity being inherently unquantifiable. I did perhaps unjustifiably resort to colloquialism by using that term. It's hard finding a balance between strict science and approachable science.
Your also trying to use the junk DNA myth with the Cvalue enigma factor in comparing prokaryotes. Again, Encode based on current data calls this the demise of the Junk DNA paradigm. Epigentics seems to be the new paradigm of the day. Unfortunately little is still known in this new field also. There is no way to distinguish complexity of any animal in any domain based on this observation. The fact that C value enigma has never been resolved is another example of the data not matching theory.
This is revisionism after the fact. When ever a failed prediction of the modern synthesis happens, Darwinist pretend as if there was no mystery & they new it all along. Ohnos was ignored for years when he indicated the potential for function in these non protein coding segments, but it didn't fit the paradigm so it was ignored. 16 years ago Kenneth Miller called these regions mindless scribble. I have the current data from Encode & Nature that destroys this paradigm. Another failed prediction.
As a Bio-geneticist what we are finding in our research, is the so called Junk DNA has crutial functions. The more we study this field the more function we find. Admittedly we only know less then 1% of the functions in DNA.
let's forget all this name-calling & personal opinions; would you evolutionists pls. cite, if any (you shouldn't have trouble quoting many) actual current scientific? projects, doctors/scientists, journals/papers (Nature magz, Scientific American, etc.) , published works, etc (cosmologists, molecular biologists, palaeontologists, physicists, astronomers, bio-chemists, etc. that actually back each other up) to once-and-for-all silence the deafeaning flaws & weakness in evolutionary theory?!??!
Charles Darwin - Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight, successive variations. She can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps.
Is that alright with you smaaky? Are you satisfied?
"Charles Darwin - Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight, successive variations. She can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps.
Is that alright with you smaaky? Are you satisfied? "
No, I'm not. You have merely described natural selection. I asked that you define evolution.
Why smaaky...Are you implying natural selection is not a process of evolution?
You are frustrated because you think I am wrong and you are right.
You don't understand how I could be missing it so bad, right?
If you want a dictionary definition of evolution, by all means I can agree with you on that. But I could never agree to the application of such a definition to the emergence of life. Not in a trillion, billion years!!!
Ahh...Abiogenesis!! Life from non-life! What a wonderful fantasy!
Shall we go round and round again smaaky? Before you go ranting about Dr. Szostak's and the Miller-Urey experiments, let me stop you before you waste my time. Who organized the lab experiments? How were they controlled? And why did Dr Szostak state that we are no closer to figuring out the origins of life? All their experiments demonstrate is that an organized effort by intelligent men was needed to produce the effect.
There is no evidence. That is why it is not true. Life evolves in the sense that it changes and adapts, grows and thrives. Species do not lose their original coded DNA. One species can not evolve, over time, and become something it is inherently not. That is a fact. Thus humans, birds, and reptiles do not have a common ancestor. That is junk science and no science at all.
This has been flagged as spam show
"No, the point is that junk-DNA is vestigial sequences from polyploidy"
This is an assertion, and your main point was that this so called junk DNA is mostly functionless and you said that even creationist admitted that pseudogenes served no function therefore this is an example of bad design. Lets be honest and not change the goal post.
benthemiester 1 week ago
The point is pseudogenes have been found to have function, so your video is false. You continue to persist that if something has not been figured out yet, then therefore it has no function, even though we're constantly discovering more function everyday.
Pseudogenes have been defined as nonfunctional sequences of genomic DNA originally derived from functional genes, but we now know they have important function. So of course their definition has to reformulated. Thats just circular thinking.
benthemiester 1 week ago
@benthemiester
No, the point is that junk-DNA is vestigial sequences from polyploidy.
smaakjeks 1 week ago
Are you saying that this so called junk DNA including pseudogenes which are in fact known to perform these important regulatory functions is irrelevant? Or that it does not contradict your video when it clearly does? Why have you ignored the literature?
benthemiester 1 week ago
@benthemiester
Some pseudogenes have been found to have function, and there is a discussion about whether or not these should then be called pseudogenes. The question is: are there gene sequences with no known function? The answer is yes. Though, as I explained last year, the point isn't that these sequences are completely non-functional, but that they are clear evidence of polyploidy. You can compare junk-DNA with vestigial organs. Non-functionality isn't the point.
smaakjeks 1 week ago
Ill take that as a no and that you have not kept up with the current data.
benthemiester 1 week ago
@benthemiester
You have not expressed anything new since the discussion we had. Bring up a new point and I will address it.
smaakjeks 1 week ago
So then I take it you admit this video is false. Or have you not kept up with the current data?
benthemiester 1 week ago
@benthemiester
I've said all I wanted to express in the comments. Go to the "all comments" page and search for your own username to see the discussion.
smaakjeks 1 week ago
The reasoning of some of these die hards who still ignore all the current empirical evidence is that if we dont understand what its used for, then it must be non functional junk. This thinking has risen up and bit people in the ass. E.g Pseudogenes have been found to exhibit functional roles, such as gene expression, gene regulation, generation of genetic antibody, antigenic, and other functions.
benthemiester 1 week ago
This is outdated information.
C Value enigma states that genome size does not correlate with organismal complexity. Many single celled protists have genomes much larger than that of humans & by orders of magnitude..
This was another failed prediction that surprised a lot of evo biologist. J DNA was once the poster child for evolution. K. Miller just a few short years ago described it as mindless scribble hence bad design, but modern science has proved him and this J DNA paradigm to be false.
benthemiester 1 week ago
@benthemiester
We had this discussion a year ago. Look in the comments....
smaakjeks 1 week ago
ISN'T EVOLUTION YOUR SUPPOSED TO EVOLVE SO HOW IS IT WE EVOLVE AND YET WE HAVE ALL THIS JUNK DNA. NO.. THEY JUST STRIPPED AWAY OUR KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITIES OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. WE ARE AN AWESOME CREATION AND WE DESERVE THE TRUTH AT THE LEAST
programedmind 1 month ago
@programedmind
We don't know the function to all the DNA yet, but most of it isn't actually junk. Redundancy in the genome makes it possible for populations to evolve without losing important protein functions in the process, for example. But, there are some sequences that appear to have no function at all. They are mutated remnants of past evolution.
smaakjeks 1 month ago
@smaakjeks the problem is we are not supposed to know the function are are just supposed to be and exist with it, we have strayed from our spiritual selves and became a product of this mindless system with no conscience. a robot following its daily routines.
programedmind 1 month ago
@programedmind
"we are not supposed to know the function"
Knowledge is not an evil. You may wish to dwell in willful ignorance, but I do not.
"we have strayed from our spiritual selves "
Define spiritual, and when were we ever more spiritual, and why was that a good thing?
"became a product of this mindless system with no conscience. a robot following its daily routines."
Knowledge and science frees us from mindless daily routines and the abject struggle for survival.
smaakjeks 1 month ago
@smaakjeks Oh i see your one of them that has to be right all the time huh. first i never said knowledge is evil. and i do not consider myself ignorant. i say spiritual in the way as in loving one another and trusting your intuition and not create useless wars for greed. again i said nothing about knowledge and science, i believe this system not right what i work like a programmed robot for 60-70 years then i can retire come on. and understand this is just me dont judge me for what i believe
programedmind 1 month ago
@programedmind
"your one of them that has to be right all the time"
Nope.
"i never said knowledge is evil"
If there are things we are not "supposed" to know, then that knowledge must be bad, right? Or did I misunderstand you?
"spiritual in the way as in loving one another and trusting your intuition"
We can know about our DNA and still be spiritual, if so inclined.
smaakjeks 1 month ago
@smaakjeks alright just making sure cause i left a comment and you felt you had to "correct me" when i say we are not supposed to know i mean it as look at how far we are from ending world hunger, we can build billion dollar aircrafts and bombs ect....i truly feel knowing DNA abilities it will be used for evil an greed, and i agree with your last statement but knowledge of this DNA will be used for self greed.
programedmind 1 month ago
@programedmind
But, knowledge can also be used for good. By using our knowledge of DNA, we have been able to cross-breed plants in order to grow them in areas they couldn't grow before. Literally, a billion people have been saved from starvation because of this. Look up Norman Borlaug and the work he has done.
smaakjeks 1 month ago
@smaakjeks i think i just might, good conversation tho this is the first one that didn't end up in cursing lol
programedmind 1 month ago
@programedmind
Yes, and it was interesting to hear your viewpoint. So many people use the word "spirituality" without explaining what they mean. You explained what you meant right away and that was very helpful. Might I just recommend that you don't use all caps next time? Because, even if you make a cogent argument, using caps lock makes it seem like you're only there to shout at people. You know what I mean?
smaakjeks 1 month ago
@smaakjeks LOL yea i hear you man, but yes interesting
programedmind 1 month ago
Comment removed
coorissue 10 months ago
@coorissue
Uh yeah, you don't know what you're talking about. You removed your own comment. Good riddance to it.
smaakjeks 10 months ago
isnt junk DNA only considered "junk" until we discover its purpose? b/c everyday scientists are finding new gene sequences here and there for all kinds of features and functions, its only a matter of time(well a long time) until we can learn everything there is about what each sequence does.
PineAppleEx420 10 months ago
@PineAppleEx420
Please watch the video before commenting.
smaakjeks 10 months ago
@PineAppleEx420 like my comment above we are not ment to discover what its function is we are just supposed to have it in us.
programedmind 1 month ago
Didn't watch this whole video just yet, as it seemed like it was going down the road of symbols and Biology talk, but I want to point out that one named Kryon, you can find his site, has stated that junk DNA is actually the 95% of our DNA that is Multi-dimensional, is our actual connection to the divine, God and that is contains all info that ever existed, our past lives, everything. If we can activate it, communicate with it, incredible transformation will ensue.
Quick2000 11 months ago
@Quick2000
Do you have any reason to believe that Kryon is correct? Also, do you know the biology of DNA?
smaakjeks 11 months ago
@smaakjeks Kryon in ten years or so, has called for things with a high probabliity of taking place, to happen, and he has been right every time. Every thing he shares feels like absolute truth to me without a shread of doubt. His info about DNA is the only info I care to read and I know it is Truth
Quick2000 11 months ago
@Quick2000
"Kryon in ten years or so, has called for things with a high probabliity of taking place, to happen, and he has been right every time."
That's what they all say. Do you have a record of all his predictions, before the events took place, or are you relying on what he tells you he predicted? Go to any psychic's website and they will claim exactly the same level of accuracy. When people actually take note of what they predict on beforehand, the predictions become very unconvincing.
smaakjeks 11 months ago
@smaakjeks Yes there are records and you can see them at the Kryon site. Also Kryon is not a psychic, way above and beyond that sort of thing! You are the type of person who will believe the bible is a holy book because your Daddy told you so, and you will defend that crazy bullshit for life!
Quick2000 11 months ago
@Quick2000
"Yes there are records and you can see them at the Kryon site."
Yeah, that's what I thought.
"Also Kryon is not a psychic, way above and beyond that sort of thing!"
Are you saying Kryon is making predictions using testable, scientific method?
"You are the type of person who will believe the bible is a holy book because your Daddy told you so, and you will defend that crazy bullshit for life!"
I suppose it's comfortable to vilify me. That way you don't have to listen to my points.
smaakjeks 11 months ago
@smaakjeks As far as I'm concerned, if you don't accept that science is slowly but surely uncovering things never known before about who and what we really are, then there is no need having any sort of discussion with you. And I am sorry for villifying you. Beliefs are the number one problem in the world, not politics and not economics!
Quick2000 11 months ago
@Quick2000
You don't concern yourself much with answering my questions, so I think we are done. For the record, I'm pretty sure I know more about science and its philosophy than you, based on the posts you've written here.
smaakjeks 11 months ago
@smaakjeks I don't answer your questions because you are a full blown skeptic and until you SEE something in a journal full of experimental documentation and so forth, then it does not exist and cannot be, so you will be stuck in your beliefs, stuck in the mud for life
Quick2000 11 months ago
@Quick2000
"I don't answer your questions because you are a full blown skeptic"
None of my questions are unfair. Do you disagree? If so, why?
"until you SEE something in a journal full of experimental documentation and so forth, then it does not exist and cannot be"
No, that's not accurate. But, science is the best method for revealing truth. And good science is peer reviewed.
smaakjeks 11 months ago
@smaakjeks Ha, I hear you brother and I do have a combative attitude with this, because you know sometimes you just have to go with your gut, the God given guidance that flows inside, with what feels good and right, not always only with statistics, tests and things Proven
Quick2000 11 months ago
@Quick2000
"sometimes you just have to go with your gut, the God given guidance that flows inside, with what feels good and right, not always only with statistics, tests and things Proven"
How does one determine when one should leave aside the statistics, tests and previous knowledge?
smaakjeks 11 months ago
@smaakjeks Can you admit that millions have died defending their beliefs, even though their beliefs were handed to them by another human being? I cannot tell YOU when to leave aside the protocol you use in order to Believe a thing, on you YOU can know that. I believe that Jesus did in fact exist, but have not seen anything to date, that would Prove it.
Quick2000 11 months ago
@smaakjeks I wonder, if you will actually go and look for everything about DNA at the Kryon site? You just don't know, what you might find there and how it makes you feel or think about things afterwards, but you have to leave all your pre-programmed beliefs at the Door please
Quick2000 11 months ago
@smaakjeks Here is what Kryon has to say about some scientific "assuptions" -What scientists call the "big bang residue" is an energy left over from a dimensional shift, not an explosion. It creates a reality where you can only see part of it in 4D, and where the energy doesn’t "add up" to the whole you know is there. This will lead you into interdimensional math and eventually to also discover the vents we’ve spoken about
Quick2000 11 months ago
@smaakjeks Kryon -All dimensions are in your lap for you to work with. There’s nothing hiding, or against some spiritual law. Magnetics is only the first area of interdimensional physics, but it’s the most obvious, since it exists in 4D in a way that can be seen and manipulated. Be careful not to have too many presuppositions about what might or might not be the results of experiments. Remember one of the most basic quantum rules: When you get into interdimensionality, distance isn’t a factor.
Quick2000 11 months ago
@smaakjeks If you want me to concern myself with the SCIENCE, then I will send you on to a very science based, factual, truthful book called The Field by Lynn McTaggart, just might want to check it out, since it is full of scientific facts taht cannot be denied
Quick2000 11 months ago
@Quick2000
Books are not necessarily peer reviewed. Anyone can get a book published. You seem to think psychics are nonsense. Yet, plenty of psychics have published books on their "accomplishments". You see the problem? A book does not constitute absolute or irrefutable evidence.
smaakjeks 11 months ago
@smaakjeks In other words you must have IRREFUTABLE evidence correct? What if the author of a book could sit down and tell you everything that happened on any given day of your life, after you give them a date? Where would that info be coming from? After experiencing something like that, let me tell you, you don't need irrefutable evidence
Quick2000 11 months ago
@smaakjeks Do you have any reason to believe Kryon is wrong about DNA? He says the multi dimensional portion of us, is in fact the 95% of DNA science calls Junk DNA, prove him wrong please!
Quick2000 11 months ago
@Quick2000
"Do you have any reason to believe Kryon is wrong about DNA? He says the multi dimensional portion of us, is in fact the 95% of DNA science calls Junk DNA, prove him wrong please!"
How is it my burden of proof? He's the one making the claim. He needs to show evidence for it. If I say that gravity is caused by angels, it's not your job to prove me wrong, right? My claim about angels is not held as reasonable UNTIL someone proves it wrong. I must provide the evidence first.
smaakjeks 11 months ago
@smaakjeks This is where you lose the argument every time. I guarantee there are lots of your beliefs based on nonsense or what somebody told you and you cannot prove them to be Truth. My beliefs are based on the fact that channelers and channeled messages have been around for centuries and before. They can tell you all about yourself even though the channel does not know you at all and lives thousands of miles away from you, they can tell you about your family, your thoughts right then and ther
Quick2000 11 months ago
@Quick2000
"I guarantee there are lots of your beliefs based on nonsense"
Maybe. I try to avoid it as best I can by being open to new evidence. Even if the evidence does not agree with my previously held beliefs. If someone corrects a wrong belief of mine, I thank them in all sincerity.
"My beliefs are based on the fact that channelers and channeled messages have been around for centuries and before."
And no one has ever demonstrated such powers in controlled tests, ever.
smaakjeks 11 months ago
@smaakjeks Yes, I do know the Biology of DNA
Quick2000 11 months ago
@Quick2000
"Yes, I do know the Biology of DNA"
So, you know what "junk-DNA" is composed of, then?
smaakjeks 11 months ago
@smaakjeks Yes I do know what it is composed of. Do you? If someone claims Jesus still speaks to us always, you will want them to show him to you for proof, funny stuff for sure!
Quick2000 11 months ago
@Quick2000
"Yes I do know what it is composed of."
Well? Tell me then.
"Do you?"
Wouldn't be much of a biologist if I didn't.
"If someone claims Jesus still speaks to us always, you will want them to show him to you for proof, funny stuff for sure!"
Either that or I'll just scoot a couple of bus seats away from him and hope he leaves me alone.
smaakjeks 11 months ago
@smaakjeks You put this video up here and so you need to know, that the latest messages from the higher dimensions states that both are right. How's that for solving the dilemma? It was and is both, creation and evolution you see. LOL We were created as expressions of God force energy and we are evolving and expanding with each choice we make in every Holy Moment
Quick2000 11 months ago
@Quick2000
"you need to know, that the latest messages from the higher dimensions states that both are right"
Well, my invisible dragon thinks the higher dimension messages get scrambled on the way over here.
"It was and is both, creation and evolution you see."
Evolution explains everything. There is no need to invoke creation myths.
"We were created as expressions of God force energy"
Evidence, please.
"we are evolving and expanding with each choice we make"
Individuals don't evolve.
smaakjeks 11 months ago
@smaakjeks would you feel the higher dimension messages were scrambled if the personality coming through could tell you all about yourself and your life, every minute detail? Hmmmm
Quick2000 11 months ago
@smaakjeks Why not do a little research that is based on fact and experiment? Check out the work of Dr. Todd Ovokaitys and also the work of Dr. Vladamir Poponin, recognized around the world as a leading expert in Quantum Biology. Also, Scott Stratken, a physicist and co-inventor of the Sonogram. Then get back to me!
Quick2000 11 months ago
@Quick2000
"Check out the work of Dr. Todd Ovokaitys and also the work of Dr. Vladamir Poponin, recognized around the world as a leading expert in Quantum Biology."
Um, quantum biology? Alright, sure. What papers have they written and in which scientific journals were they published?
smaakjeks 11 months ago
@smaakjeks sure hope you check this Doctor out and see for yourself what kind of things are taking place these days! Time to throw open the doors and windows and let some FRESH air in me thinks
Quick2000 11 months ago
@smaakjeks Everything that is presented in the book The Field is documented and is as infallible as you can get with scientific work
Quick2000 11 months ago
@smaakjeks You can learn all about these special experimenters and what they have found in the awesome book by Kryon called The Twelve Layers of DNA
Quick2000 11 months ago
@Quick2000 I'll check on those journals there buddy!
Quick2000 11 months ago
@smaakjeks Dr. Ovokaitys has found or uncovered Interdimensionality within our own cellular structure! He is leading the way in eliminating Aids from Africa, how bout that?
Quick2000 11 months ago
@smaakjeks One of the Core statements of Superstring Theory is that the Center of the Atom contains at least 11 dimensions! All this time and money in Geneva Switzerland will prove over time what many already know or suspect, that we are only aware of four dimensions in an 11 dimensional soup!
Quick2000 11 months ago
@Quick2000
"One of the Core statements of Superstring Theory is that the Center of the Atom contains at least 11 dimensions!"
So? That doesn't mean there are people living there, telling us what our DNA is all about. Just like the fact that New York exists doesn't prove that Spider-Man exists.
smaakjeks 11 months ago
@smaakjeks What does this have to do with what I said about Superstring Theory? Not sure you even read my comment with a reply like this.
"So? That doesn't mean there are people living there, telling us what our DNA is all about."
Quick2000 11 months ago
@smaakjeks Dr. Stratken has created a Device that somehow excites multidimensional parts of our cellular structure with information. The results of lab tests showed that the human body was reacting to things that had never been seen before. "Invisible Biology" was being stimulated to create self diagnostics and attack virulent, marauding diseases to the point of extinction of them
Quick2000 11 months ago
JUNK DNA IS OUR FUTURE EVOLUTION, THE SWINE FLU SHOT WILL DAMAGE THE DNA
RealityGameWorld 1 year ago
@RealityGameWorld
"THE SWINE FLU SHOT WILL DAMAGE THE DNA"
No, it won't. There are no vaccines that make use of gene therapy technology.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
you say that creationist never have any prophecies that come true. Well We got World Wars right. Bigger earthquakes, mass murders, the rebuilding of Babel and so many more right. what have evolutionist gotten right ye?t
anonymousnamealso 1 year ago
@anonymousnamealso
I never talked about prophecies. Prophecy is always bullshit, because 1) they can be self-fulfilling, and B) they are always....ALWAYS... interpreted after the fact.
How come no creationists warned us about Hitler in the 1930's, for example? Or warned archduke Ferdinand to stay at home before that? Natural disasters/genocides are not increasing in severity, sorry.
I'm talking about scientific (falsifiable) predictions. Evolution has several. Creationism has zero.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks actually you did talk about prophecies."Creationists can't make ANY predictions because their model is utterly unfalsifiable, and thus unscientific". In Revelations the words War worlds is mentioned. This was translated 400 years ago, and was written 1980 years ago. It all was, it's up to us how deep we go to find out what is really in there. However scientist can't even predict the weather.
anonymousnamealso 1 year ago
@anonymousnamealso
"actually you did talk about prophecies."
No. A prophecy does not equal a prediction in the scientific sense. I explained why prophecies are unconvincing already. Your comments has nothing to do with creationism, evolution or falsifiability. I'm not interested in debunking Bible codes or prophecies here. There are plenty of videos that deal with that nonsense.
"However scientist can't even predict the weather."
Don't even go there. Science demonstrably proves its worth.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks oh really. Pick a city. Pick a station. Listen to the weather person and dress accordingly. after you get soaked or burnt then tell me that scientist can tell the weather. Predictions are prophecies. Just as bad is evil.
anonymousnamealso 1 year ago
@anonymousnamealso
If you think science is worthless then get off your computer. Also stop using modern medicine. And modern transportation. Because all of it is a product of scientific knowledge.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks many different forms of science is very much worthless. Medical science can't seem to cure anything only patch it up yet eastern medicine seems to cure almost everything, just by using basic herbs. Computer science isn't the same as conventional science. Oh and I don't use Modern Medicine. I don't get sic, I've never had any serious problems and like millions of Americans I get along just fine without it. Modern Transportation. So how many die cause of transportation problems each day
anonymousnamealso 1 year ago
@anonymousnamealso
"many different forms of science is very much worthless."
That depends on what your idea of science is, and what you mean by worthless.
"Medical science can't seem to cure anything"
You don't think modern medical science is worth much? Have you checked the life expectancy before and after modern medicine kicked in? Go back a few hundred years and you would be dead before 50. Remember that day you had polio? Or small pox? No? That's because you never had it.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@anonymousnamealso
"yet eastern medicine seems to cure almost everything, just by using basic herbs."
Herbs are not magical. Modern medicine exploits the active ingredients in herbs by extracting them or replicating them, and dosing them properly. Using just the herb is not safe medical practice, because
1) there are usually many active ingredients in a plant and the mix might be detrimental to you (i.e. organ damage or other side effects)
2) the dosage is extremely variable in plants.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@anonymousnamealso
"Oh and I don't use Modern Medicine."
Yes you do. Do you drink from the tap? You're welcome for the fluoridation that strengthens your teeth. Do you live near people? You're welcome for the herd immunity that vaccinations bring. Do you buy food? You're welcome for the preservatives and sanitation with which those products are possible. Most of the invasive help, like surgery or long-term treatments, will happen late in your life. Also, haven't you been to the dentist?
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@anonymousnamealso
"I've never had any serious problems and like millions of Americans I get along just fine without it."
Until they have to give birth or they get cancer, heart failure etc etc.
"Modern Transportation. So how many die cause of transportation problems each day"
You're blaming science for that? You would rather we hadn't discovered the internal combustion engine or its physical principles because less people would die? You're welcome to be Amish, but that would mean no youtube.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
I just love how evolutionist say that they can prove evolution through the fact that our DNA has mostly Junk DNA in it. When truthfully speaking it's not junk, Atheist always call something useless if they don't understand it. Evolutionist always call something a lie if they can't use it towards their advantage. Truth of th fact is God has a purpose for everything, and nothing is here just to do nothing. Even the smallest pebble has a meaning and importance. You just have to find it.
anonymousnamealso 1 year ago
@anonymousnamealso
Didn't watch the video, did you...
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks You know what i Did. I went to Evolutionist websites dealing with new found uses of MDNA for cancer and how they on their website said that it's apparently not all "Junk" as they've said many times before.
anonymousnamealso 1 year ago
@smaakjeks Not at first. but I still disagree. Here's why. Until we know for a fact what all the DNA does then the 2% that we do know about is all the scientific world can actually talk about. To know now that it's not really "Junk" anymore is a good start however Creationist had been saying this since the beginning. to be honest you can't say that J-DNA has no Protein values in it what so ever cause we don't know how to look for the information we would need.
anonymousnamealso 1 year ago
@anonymousnamealso
You evidently don't understand the subject at all, nor what scientists think of the matter of J-DNA. Until you do, educate yourself. I don't have time.
Creationists can't make ANY predictions because their model is utterly unfalsifiable, and thus unscientific. View my video called "creationism and falsifiability" (part 1) if you disagree.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks Well I actually do understand it. I don't have to have a in depth understanding to gasp the full picture. I've read a few different papers on what scientist think of j-DNA and what they think it does. the problem is once again they think that it does one thing when they don't know what it's function is yet. BTW if I make any mistakes, please excuse me, I've been up for 40 hours.
anonymousnamealso 1 year ago
@anonymousnamealso
"I've read a few different papers on what scientist think of j-DNA and what they think it does."
Such as?
"the problem is once again they think that it does one thing when they don't know what it's function is yet."
But for the vast majority of the different categories of non-coding sequences, they do know. But this is not the point of my video. My video (in the context of the video series) shows how new genes can arise and that j-DNA is evidence of such mechanisms.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
One man's "junk" is another person's "treasure"--it all depends on whether you base your assumption on "it will have lots of leftover junk because it wasn't designed, but came about totally by copy erros" or "it is well designed but has undergone degradation."
Now the evolutionists are being forced to redefine what "junk" is because the sequences have been shown to be quite useful--which is what ID predicted.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
It's been a long time since scientists though most "junk-DNA" had no function. And it was not creationists who corrected that. It was scientists. There are actually no predictions of ID (check out my video "creationism and falsifiability" if you think there are). If there were, you would be able to tell me what the difference between a designed and a non-designed life form would be and why.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks "diff. betw. a designed and a non-designed life form would be and why" I wouldn't postulate that there are ANY non-designed life forms. Life requires the ability to metabolize and reproduce--two very complex functions that require fully working systems or they die.
If you want to use an altered life form taking a living organism and replacing all or a portion of its DNA, we would have to classify this as a designed life forum--as prone to disease and death as this life form might be.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
"I wouldn't postulate that there are ANY non-designed life forms"
I suspected as much. I asked what non-designed life WOULD look like, as in hypothetically, according to you.
"Life requires the ability to metabolize and reproduce--two very complex functions that require fully working systems or they die."
Stick to the topic. If you want to talk about abiogenesis, do it in a video about abiogenesis.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks "the topic" Please, no false dichotomies. To talk about a LIFE form requires reference to that which could give it life, i.e. -biogenesis. A non-designed life form might look something like a momentary stringing together of a mix of right and left-handed amino acids. It couldn't get any further than that and would either be destroyed by UV light or would quickly disassociate.
The only other one I can think of would be the aberrant cell growth of cancer in a designed life form.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
"Please, no false dichotomies."
Um, what? I never said abiogenesis and evolution are dichotomous. But they are different subjects.
"To talk about a LIFE form requires reference to that which could give it life, i.e. -biogenesis."
You're the one claiming that ID has made accurate predictions about genomes as they exist today. Thus you are yourself talking about life today, and not how it arose.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks You separated the topics when discussion of how one could have a LIFE form is the essence of the question of what non-designed LIFE forms would look like. OK, let's assume we already have LIFE. How would we, from this point on get non-designed life? I gave you the only scenario I could think of--that which is caused by a virus or radiation--cancer.
Cancer has order, but it eventually takes over and kills the "host." Non-designed life = death.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
You're not getting my point. You said ID has made accurate predictions about life as it exists today. In order for a prediction to be scientifically valid, it must be potentially falsifiable. Thus, in order for you to recognize life as designed you must be able to tell me how a non-designed life form WOULD be like if one could exist. And you have to tell me WHY it would be like that.
For ex. I can tell you potentially falsifiable predictions that evolution gives about life.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks I did tell you. I have no evidence that non-designed life--other than that aberrated by cancer or irradiation or some other destroyer of order--could survive. Run with the implications of irradiated embryos because that would be one of the only examples of non-designed life that we have. Even still, that non-designed life exists within a designed host. Will the cancer cells pass on their DNA to the next generation? I haven't studied enough about this to know. Likely it will die.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
"I have no evidence that non-designed life"
Read carefully. I am not asking for actual evidence. First you must be able to RECOGNIZE what non-designed life WOULD look like IF it existed, as opposed to designed life.
Let's say I claim that all boats float. How can I know if my claim is right? I must have a way of RECOGNIZING whether or not my claim is true. Well, I would know what a sunken boat looks like as opposed to a floating boat, even if no boats ever actually sink. See?
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks You get it! I can't postulate that there is anything but designed life because non-design doesn't work. It's just junk. I have no evidence to conclude that undirected forces ever create information. That is why evolutionary theory is preposterous to me. Now you may have evidence to conclude that undirected forces actually create information. Appealing to the adaptation of DNA is excluded or you are begging the question. It adapts because that is how it was designed to work. What else?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
"You get it! I can't postulate that there is anything but designed life because non-design doesn't work."
Gah! Are you a troll? That's it, I'm making a video.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks Here's why I expect that you should get it:
"Let's say I claim that all boats float. How can I know if my claim is right? I must have a way of *RECOGNIZING* whether or not my claim is true. Well, I would *know * what a sunken boat looks like as opposed to a floating boat, even if no boats ever actually sink. See?"
This is based on something you actually KNOW. Why postulate on something I do not know to be true? Nothing in life tells me organized information comes from non-design.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
"A non-designed life form might look something like a momentary stringing together of a mix of right and left-handed amino acids."
Why would that be? Remember I asked that you explain your reasoning. Natural selection accounts for the existence of only one type of life. Specifically, equations concerning populations and competition dynamics: the competitive Lotka-Volterra equations.
"It couldn't get any further"
That's not what I asked you to speculate on.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks Natural selection is not a force. Natural selection is not one thing. Natural selection does not award a prize to the absolute best or the actual "fittest." Natural selection actually means "whatever didn't die." A plane goes down, all but a single individual dies. This is "Natural Selection." That person's surviving the accident insures that only her DNA can be passed on--though it may not be.
I cannot speculate beyond that which is constrained by actual evidence.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
"Natural selection actually means "whatever didn't die.""
No, it doesn't.
"A plane goes down, all but a single individual dies. This is "Natural Selection.""
No, it's not. It's a stochastic event that, if anything, disrupts natural selection.
"I cannot speculate beyond that which is constrained by actual evidence."
Then you have no grounds for saying that ID predicts anything about life.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks Is a plane supernatural? Of course not. It uses natural principles to fly. The death of species can be just as "stochastic." A catastrophic event wipes out all but certain life forms. This is Natural Selection. Survival of whatever didn't die.
Sometimes whatever didn't die is the result of greater will to live; sometimes of happening to be near water; being in the right place at the right time--pure chance.
Natural selection is NOT a force. It's a summary statement.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
"Is a plane supernatural? Of course not."
Um, I never said it was. I'm just saying that there's a difference between natural selection and stochasticity.
"The death of species can be just as "stochastic.""
Yep.
"This is Natural Selection. Survival of whatever didn't die."
Fallacy by equivocation. Natural selection is used to describe survivability in an environment. Catastrophic events can change the environment. Natural selection is not stochastic.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks Who's equivocating here? Events in the environment are frequently catastrophic. How few things are you going to allow in the natural world to qualify as "natural selection"? List them!
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
"How few things are you going to allow in the natural world to qualify as "natural selection"? List them!"
Any lasting restrictions on survivability and reproductive success causes natural selection. Sure, organisms die from stochastic events, too. But the resulting evolution is not the same. Random events like earthquakes usually don't amount to any measurable selective pressure. That is, there is no strong selection for earthquake avoidance. Because they occur "randomly".
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks "Why would that be?" The only actual evidence we have of non-directed formation of a life form comes from the laboratory. Though highly contrived, as any lab experiment must be, it showed that non-directed design is a fleeting thing--momentary linking of amino acids, lining up in a mix of right and left-handed patterns and then rapid disassociation unless retrieved from the environment by the intervening scientist. That's it.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
"The only actual evidence we have of non-directed formation of a life form comes from the laboratory."
Jesus wept.... It appears as though you don't know what the following words mean:
-potential
-falsifiable
-prediction
Do that. Then get back to me. If any and all potential evidence that could ever exist is predicted by ID, then nothing is predicted by ID. Don't you get that??
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks You're really getting on my nerves. I answered your question. You can't get to "potential," "falsifiable," or "prediction" when you predicate your hypothetical on something that is impossible.
"Let's say I decided to physically enter the Internet this morning, and I met you ..."
That would be stupid. Here's the real question:
Do you believe that life periodically generates spontaneously from non-life?
Then, give one undisputed example of an unguided process creating code.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
"You're really getting on my nerves"
Then we are two.
"You can't get to "potential," "falsifiable," or "prediction" when you predicate your hypothetical on something that is impossible."
What part of falsifiability don't you understand? Do I have to frikkin sing it to you? Methinks I have to make another video about creationism and falsifiability. This is obviously too difficult to grasp for the average creationist...
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks I get that you want to talk about falsifiability. Don't be insulting. You can't talk about falsifiability of something that is imaginary. Unless we establish what is realistic and what is imaginary, we can't determine what is a fact and what can be falsified or not.
You set the table to ask about design. I answered your question, giving the only examples of non-designed life I could think of. I have called for evidence from the observable world to validate your imaginary scenario.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@smaakjeks Now, here's the real question before posing hypothetical non-designed life:
Do you believe that life periodically generates spontaneously from non-life?
Then, give one undisputed example of an unguided process creating code.
I appreciatively await your answer.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
Though my future video deals with most of your stuff (in general at least), I can answer this question that you pose, as I do not address it in the video:
"Do you believe that life periodically generates spontaneously from non-life?"
No. In the environments that would be potentially hospitable to life forming eventually, there will be life already stealing the resources (organic compounds, energy, water, etc).
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks OK. We are in agreement on this. To postulate that it can't happen now, but it HAD to happen back then is a "dog ate my homework" excuse. Why? There is no evidence that the environment was hospitable to formation of amino acids in the past.
1. As far as I know, oxidation is part of the geological record since the beginning.
2. Millers aminos had to be rescued from the "soup" or they'd disassociate.
Fundamentally, life doesn't come from non-life. Consciousness is not merely chemical.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
"To postulate that it can't happen now, but it HAD to happen back then is a "dog ate my homework" excuse."
No. I explained why it wouldn't happen today. At least not in nature. Under sterile conditions it could.
"There is no evidence that the environment was hospitable to formation of amino acids in the past."
BULLSHIT. Why don't you try looking for some information before denying its existence.
"Millers aminos"
That was in 1952. We're come a smidgen farther since then.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks "Under sterile conditions it could." It hasn't ... under sterile conditions. Your FAITH is amazing.
"BULLSHIT." No cows at that time either to help the process. The evidence shows it was not a reducing environment. Plenty of oxidation at that point in the geological column says Miller's experiment set the wrong conditions.
"a smidgen farther since then" Created life in a sterile environment, have we? Didn't then, haven't now, will do it ... never. But your FAITH is commendable.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
"It hasn't ... under sterile conditions. Your FAITH is amazing."
Not yet. But there are different hypotheses on how it happened. It's not a matter of faith.
"The evidence shows it was not a reducing environment."
The Earth is a big place.
"Created life in a sterile environment, have we? Didn't then, haven't now, will do it ... never."
It's a bit difficult recreating something that happened 4 billion years ago. We're making progress, though. Even you can't deny that.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks "It's not a matter of faith." Hoping against hope that life can be produced in a laboratory when time and again it has not is most definitely faith. Neodarwinian evolution is built on Christian values, has the optimism of Christianity, and requires more FAITH in naturalistic means and human imagination than Christianity ever could.
"We're making progress." If you think jumping five feet in the air over four feet is making progress toward jumping to the moon, I admire your faith.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
"Hoping against hope (blah blah)"
All the evidence we have suggests that life arose naturally. And even if we never know how it arose, that does not lend legitimacy to your notion of a supernatural creator (which is unfalsifiable). Your idea is not the default position.
"If you think jumping five feet in the air over four feet is making progress toward jumping to the moon, I admire your faith."
It's better than digging a hole and plugging your ears.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks Evolution is unfalsifiable. I've been reading and asking and no real test to the theory has been posited. The test you posited verifies ID as well. When anything that was predicted by evolutionary theory doesn't hold up (like junk DNA), evolutionists just change their definition, making the predictions unfalsiable. (Now junk doesn't really mean junk or even what was meant by the term when coined.)
I'll say! "Plugging [my] ears" I'll NEVER jump to the moon. Keep jumping! One day ...
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
"Hoping against hope (blah blah)"
All the evidence we have suggests that life arose naturally. And even if we never know how it arose, that does not lend legitimacy to your notion of a supernatural creator, which is unfalsifiable. Your idea is not the default position.
"If you think jumping five feet in the air over four feet is making progress toward jumping to the moon, I admire your faith."
It's better than digging a hole and plugging your ears.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks Now, would it be possible for you to give one undisputed example of an unguided process creating code?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
"Now, would it be possible for you to give one undisputed example of an unguided process creating code?"
Define code in the contex of DNA. Do you mean new genes? New traits?
I can provide you with an undisputed example of a novel trait evolving in a population.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks You can't use DNA. That would be begging the question since it is the very thing in dispute.
"My example of an unguided process creating code like I claim DNA does is DNA writing code without any guidance." Ridiculous!
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
"You can't use DNA. That would be begging the question since it is the very thing in dispute."
You said "code". I'm assuming you mean to say that DNA is a code, do you not? Otherwise why bring it up? So. In what way is DNA a code. That's what I asked. Stop beating around the bush and define it.
""My example of an unguided process creating code like I claim DNA does is DNA writing code without any guidance.""
What? Is that supposed to be something I've said?
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks "DNA is a code" Yes, it is.
To use DNA as an example of an unguided process creating code to prove that an unguided process creating code is ridiculous.
So ... you would need to cite another example.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@smaakjeks Get real. If any and all potential evidence that could ever exist is predicted by evolutionary theory, then nothing is predicted by evolutionary theory. Don't you get that??
You're describing evolutionary theory, not ID. ID doesn't predict everything. All it does is draw a correlation between design and, specifically, digital code and what we know about the mechanisms that create design.
It predicts useful information in the genome, not JUNK, and that is what we find.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
"If any and all potential evidence that could ever exist is predicted by evolutionary theory, then nothing is predicted by evolutionary theory. Don't you get that??"
Except that evolution has specific predictions that ARE potentially falsifiable.
"ID doesn't predict everything"
Correction: doesn't predict anything.
"It predicts useful information in the genome"
Why would ID predict that? A supernatural creating being isn't restricted by natural genetics.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks Your skipping the implications that your statement indicted Evolutionary theory is noted.
The supernatural being established the laws of the universe. It is because of that worldview that scientists began looking for laws--and they found them. Other worldviews didn't and don't look for life to be amenable to law. (Islam, magic, etc.) His law is what guides the universe. Perhaps you didn't know this.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
"The supernatural being established the laws of the universe. It is because of that worldview that scientists began looking for laws--and they found them. Other worldviews didn't and don't look for life to be amenable to law. (Islam, magic, etc.)"
Is that a joke? Muslims practically invented science. The Greeks invented logic. Christians spent most of the early days taking control and killing/burning knowledge. Now you want Christianity to take credit for scientific knowledge?
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks ID doesn't predict everything. It predicts useful information in the genome--not junk. Yet it also recognizes that this information can be degraded by copying errors, though there was foresight in including mechanisms that usually catch such errors. Intelligent Design, as opposed to the "blind" (Dawkins) "stupid design" (Tyson) of evolution, also presupposes that the Intelligent Designer had forethought, which programmed in the ability to adapt to new situations.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@smaakjeks What is "potentially falsifiable"? Either it is falsifiable or it isn't. And what are these predictions?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
Perhaps I should have used "falsifying" rather than "falsifiable". I respond to this in my future video. I'll PM you when it's up. I hope it clarifies my points.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
I have can't have a closed my mind. As a rational person u always have to consider what future science may discover but as I said before as of now the Cvalue enigma or paradox or what ever name u prefer has not yet been resolved. I forgot to send Ryan Gregory's Birds Eye View, but in it he admits that the answers are probably not one dimensional and could be much more complex than we think. Keep in mind he didn't have the same data concerning Junk DNA as we have today, even if a short time ago.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester
Good. I'm glad you haven't closed your mind. You are obviously a mild case of creationist or whatever it is you prefer to be called. And indeed the field of molecular biology is progressing fast! That's why it's awesome when people take the time to point out mistakes in videos, such as you just did. I also go where the evidence points. I have never understood people who hold on to preferred beliefs, as if believing them in and of itself made them less false.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
My words were that Cvalue enigma has never been resolved. I never said correlations could not be drawn. Are you reading a Birds Eye View T Ryan? Wikipedia also has article that is current. By the way, no offense. Don't mistake passion for hatred.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester
Well, the correlations could handily explain the varying c-values. It's not like it's an utter mystery that cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. Several known mechanisms increase and decrease genome size. This video does not illustrate a critical test of evolution. It's meant to demonstrate polyploidy in our evolutionary past. "Junk-DNA" (i.e. 97% of our genome) exist because of mechanisms such as that. That's the take-home message.
No offense taken.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
An lowly amoeba can have more genetic information than humans by orders of magnitude. We can draw correlations and make hypothesis based on observable evidence & based on the failed Junk DNA paradigm hypothesis, but the complexity of organisms and animals can not be determined on the genetic level with out priori assumptions and conjecture. Twenty years ago, we couldn't figure out what these segments did.....therefore evolution must have done it. Sound familiar?
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester
I have responded to and refuted you assertion that the c-value enigma still exists. You're right about complexity being inherently unquantifiable. I did perhaps unjustifiably resort to colloquialism by using that term. It's hard finding a balance between strict science and approachable science.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
Your also trying to use the junk DNA myth with the Cvalue enigma factor in comparing prokaryotes. Again, Encode based on current data calls this the demise of the Junk DNA paradigm. Epigentics seems to be the new paradigm of the day. Unfortunately little is still known in this new field also. There is no way to distinguish complexity of any animal in any domain based on this observation. The fact that C value enigma has never been resolved is another example of the data not matching theory.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester
Thank you for that comment. The c-values has indeed been accounted for, though:
Bennett, M.D. & Leitch, I.J. (2005): "Genome size evolution in plants". in T.R. Gregory. The Evolution of the Genome. San Diego: Elsevier. p.89–162.
Gregory, T. R. (2005): "Genome size evolution in animals". in T.R. Gregory. The Evolution of the Genome. San Diego: Elsevier. p.3–87.
In any case the c-value enigma is not a vital part of the video. It's a one-slide side note. But thanks.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
This is revisionism after the fact. When ever a failed prediction of the modern synthesis happens, Darwinist pretend as if there was no mystery & they new it all along. Ohnos was ignored for years when he indicated the potential for function in these non protein coding segments, but it didn't fit the paradigm so it was ignored. 16 years ago Kenneth Miller called these regions mindless scribble. I have the current data from Encode & Nature that destroys this paradigm. Another failed prediction.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester
Did you even watch the video?
smaakjeks 1 year ago
"Junk" DNA is a loose term used to define DNA that does not code for any proteins; it doesn't mean that it has no function.
FirstFreedomFighter 2 years ago
Did you watch the video?
smaakjeks 2 years ago
As a Bio-geneticist what we are finding in our research, is the so called Junk DNA has crutial functions. The more we study this field the more function we find. Admittedly we only know less then 1% of the functions in DNA.
goshawker07 2 years ago
Did you watch the entire video?
smaakjeks 2 years ago
@goshawker07
If you are a Bio-geneticist, why is it that you being educated, you used then, instead of than? ;-)
realnotes 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
let's forget all this name-calling & personal opinions; would you evolutionists pls. cite, if any (you shouldn't have trouble quoting many) actual current scientific? projects, doctors/scientists, journals/papers (Nature magz, Scientific American, etc.) , published works, etc (cosmologists, molecular biologists, palaeontologists, physicists, astronomers, bio-chemists, etc. that actually back each other up) to once-and-for-all silence the deafeaning flaws & weakness in evolutionary theory?!??!
m3p3p1t0 2 years ago
Charles Darwin - Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight, successive variations. She can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps.
Is that alright with you smaaky? Are you satisfied?
Axiom2rue 3 years ago
"Charles Darwin - Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight, successive variations. She can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps.
Is that alright with you smaaky? Are you satisfied? "
No, I'm not. You have merely described natural selection. I asked that you define evolution.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
Why smaaky...Are you implying natural selection is not a process of evolution?
You are frustrated because you think I am wrong and you are right.
You don't understand how I could be missing it so bad, right?
If you want a dictionary definition of evolution, by all means I can agree with you on that. But I could never agree to the application of such a definition to the emergence of life. Not in a trillion, billion years!!!
Axiom2rue 3 years ago
"Are you implying natural selection is not a process of evolution?"
Of course not. But natural selection is only part of why evolution works.
"You are frustrated because you think I am wrong and you are right."
No, I'm frustrated because you just won't answer simple questions.
"If you want a dictionary definition of evolution, by all means I can agree with you on that. "
And that definition is....?
"the emergence of life."
Is not evolution, but abiogenesis.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
Ahh...Abiogenesis!! Life from non-life! What a wonderful fantasy!
Shall we go round and round again smaaky? Before you go ranting about Dr. Szostak's and the Miller-Urey experiments, let me stop you before you waste my time. Who organized the lab experiments? How were they controlled? And why did Dr Szostak state that we are no closer to figuring out the origins of life? All their experiments demonstrate is that an organized effort by intelligent men was needed to produce the effect.
Axiom2rue 3 years ago
"Ahh...Abiogenesis!! Life from non-life! What a wonderful fantasy!"
Lol.
"Shall we go round and round again smaaky?"
Tell me what evidence would convince you evolution is true.
"Who organized the lab experiments? How were they controlled?"
Are we going to stick to evolution? Or do you concede that life evolved and evolves?
"All their experiments demonstrate is that an organized effort by intelligent men was needed to produce the effect."
Lol.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
There is no evidence. That is why it is not true. Life evolves in the sense that it changes and adapts, grows and thrives. Species do not lose their original coded DNA. One species can not evolve, over time, and become something it is inherently not. That is a fact. Thus humans, birds, and reptiles do not have a common ancestor. That is junk science and no science at all.